The present invention describes a wearable device for simultaneously gathering multiple data points in free space and the analysis of said data, for the purpose of controlling a computer and computer systems, such as a computer game console, as well as some techniques and devices which are usable in other types of equipment which requires digital input.
Technologies associated with digital input have evolved rapidly over the last several decades. In general the functions these technologies address can be classified as: Keyboard Input, Mouse Input, Gesture Input, Head Tracking Input and Motion Input.
Keyboard Input.
Of particular interest for this specification are devices designed to enter alpha-numeric data which are wearable. An example is USPTO Application 2004/0,210,166 which describes a binary (on/off) system for detecting finger motion. Another example is USPTO Application 2005/0,172,734 which describes a device for detecting finger motion, requiring a finger to be in proximity to a portion of the device.
Mouse Input.
Of particular interest for this specification are devices designed to control a single screen cursor, which are wearable or hand-held. An example is U.S. Pat. No. 7,626,572 which describes a hand-held device for detecting movement of the outer portions of the device through optical means. Another example is U.S. Pat. No. 7,239,301 which describes a hand held device for detecting movement in free space.
Gesture Input.
Of particular interest for this specification are devices designed to detect and analyze gestures. An example is USPTO Application 2005/0,172,734 mentioned above as it describes accelerometers to track motion in free space. Another example is USPTO Application 2005/0,212,767 which describes a single point gesture detection and analysis system.
Head Tracking Input.
Of particular interest for this specification is that devices known in the art, such as USPTO Application 2005/0,256,675 are directed towards determining the orientation of a head, typically in relation to a computer screen.
Motion Input.
Of particular interest for this specification are devices designed to detect motions which are wearable, such as U.S. Pat. No. 7,774,155, which describes a Nintendo game controller.
Wearable input device technology can be further examined based on the following characteristics: Form, Price, Human Input, Reliability, Data Collection, Usability, and Fashion.
Form.
For the purpose of this specification, Form refers to the geometry of a wearable input device. Referring to “Wireless Control Device” U.S. Pat. No. 6,747,632, an optical-based wearable input device, is described which includes a housing designed to be worn on the underside of a user's wrist. Thus its form is; a device worn on the underside of a wrist with a thickness sufficient for an optical sensor to detect finger motion past the heel of the palm. The form of “Data Input Device” USPTO 2005/0172734 is a “U” shaped device worn on a hand such that the palm side of the device is in proximity to a user's metacarpophalangeal joints and the device is of sufficient size to contain logic and circuitry. Even small differences in the form of a wearable input device can make a significant difference in the productivity and enjoyment of a user's experience, and thus is an important factor in a buy decision.
Reliability.
A metric for measuring reliability is mean time to failure (MTTF), as a typical user of wearable input devices will replace, rather than repair, a device upon failure. There is no correct MTTF for wearable input devices as design choices in form, function, price, accuracy, usability and fashion will impact MTTF. Consumers expect a wearable input device such as “Soap mobile electronic human interface device” U.S. Pat. No. 7,626,572 designed for an office environment, and used during business hours (e.g., eight hours a day, five days a week), to have a greater MTTF than a device such as “Hand-attachable controller with direction sensing” U.S. Pat. No. 5,796,354 designed for computer games, and used hours per week. When choosing between similar wearable input devices, consumers will base their buy decision on price and reliability.
Price.
Recent advances in technology, such as the reduced cost and size of computer chips, enable more flexibility in the design of consumer wearable input devices. Thus current devices may offer consumers more features at lower prices. It should also be noted that consumers have different requirements for computer input devices. For example some consumers only require a computer mouse with one button, while some consumers would prefer a mouse with multiple buttons and will pay a premium for devices with more functionality.
Human Input.
A metric for measuring a wearable input device is how much does the device constrain or dictate human motion. For example, a basic keyboard requires a binary switch to be depressed. In a similar fashion, U.S. Pat. No. 6,380,923 “Full-time wearable information managing device and method for the same” requires a fingertip to hit a surface. U.S. Pat. No. 6,747,632 requires a finger to bend toward the palm in a manner wherein a portion of the finger can be detected by an optical device worn on the wrist. USPTO Application 2010/0220054 “Wearable electrical apparatus” requires two human body surfaces to touch. USPTO Application 2010/0225590 “A Portable Wearable Input Apparatus” requires wearable switches to be activated.
Even small differences in the human input of a wearable input device can make a significant difference in the productivity and enjoyment of a user's experience, and thus are an important factor in a buy decision. Additionally, handicapped individuals may not have the means to use some wearable input devices.
Data Collection.
Data collection has three primary components: data points and degree-of-freedom (DOF) and type of data. The first metric to consider is how many different data points a device uses. For example, game consoles, free space mice and mobile phones with motion sensors only detect motion from one data point, the location of the device. USPTO Application 2005/0172734 detects the location of four fingers plus the location of the device itself in free space, so for the purposes of this specification it is considered to have 5 data points. The second metric to consider is the degree-of-freedom of an individual sensor. A free space input device will typically have either 2-dof or 6-dof sensors. USPTO Application 2010/0220054 is an example of a 2-dof device. For the purposes of this specification, binary switches such as a keyboard switch may be considered a 1-dof device, as only motion in one direction is required.
More Data Points.
Wearable input devices incorporate a wide variety, type and location of sensors. These devices are typically designed for one primary function such as keyboard or mouse input. Additional data points add to the complexity and cost of a device, so devices are designed to collect the minimum number of data points to accomplish their primary function. There are functions such as capturing and translating a gesture-based language, such as American Sign Language (ASL), which requires a device which captures more data points than is currently known in the art.
Fewer Data Points.
In some cases a device having more sensors is superior for its primary function to a device having fewer sensors. In other cases a device having fewer sensors is superior for its primary function to a device having more sensors. U.S. Pat. No. 6,636,826 “Orientation angle detector,” describes a wearable device comprising a plurality of gyroscopes for tracking a user's head movements in virtual environments. Of particular note to this specification is that this head tracking is done for the purpose of transposing head movement into a virtual world. If the primary function of a wearable input device does not require head orientation, one far less expensive method to get data from head movement is to simply use one accelerometer to get simple 6-degree-of-freedom data.
Sensor Types.
Sensors vary widely in price, reliability and function. For example Fiber Optic gyroscopes have excellent accuracy but are more expensive than the less accurate Coriolis vibratory gyroscopes. A popular game controller uses a low G accelerometer which is adequate for most game functions. However when a player makes a vigorous golf swing the forces of the golf swing may be greater than a low G accelerometer can measure, and thus some data is lost. A more expensive high G accelerometer would solve this problem.
There are a number of different sensor types which are suitable for wearable computer input devices including: mechanical switches, magnetic switches, gyroscopes, etc. There is no correct sensor or combination of sensors for all wearable input devices.
Sensor Placement.
In some contexts wearable input devices which are analogues of conventional keyboards and mice are not wholly satisfactory. For example it is desirous that wearable input devices are unobtrusive and not inhibit normal user interaction. Furthermore when a user is performing a complex task requiring use of his or her hands it is desirable to provide user interfaces which are advantageous over the conventional alternatives. U.S. Pat. No. 7,454,309 “Foot activated user interface” describes a wearable foot controller input device, using a light sensor. Specific sensor location will directly influence both functionality and ease of use.
Usability.
There is no numerical metric to determine a wearable computer input device's usability, as usability depends on both the task to be performed, the constraints a device places on a user and a user's limitations and preferences. Additionally cost may play a factor in choosing one device over another.
One aspect of wearable computer input device usability is how well a device can perform a particular function. As discussed above, wearable computer input devices can perform multiple functions, such as keyboard input and mouse input. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,239,301 is primarily a free space mouse device, however, it can be configured to use as keyboard input. In a similar fashion, USPTO Application 2005/0172734 is primarily a keyboard input device, however, it can be configured to use as a free space mouse. In both cases, their primary function is far more usable than their secondary functions. Thus a user is more likely to pick the U.S. Pat. No. 7,239,301 device as the more usable device to control a video system than s/he is the 2005/0172734 device for the same task.
Another aspect of wearable computer input device usability is the degree a device hinders a user's movements and normal activity. For example the device described in 2005/0172734 has a form that constrains the mobility of a user's hand. A user could not use 2005/0172734 and hold a cup of coffee in the same hand. The device described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,747,632 has a form that projects from the bottom part of a user's wrist which would interfere with some normal activities such as changing a diaper.
Another aspect of wearable computer input device usability is how well a device performs in view of a user's limitations. Many wearable computer input devices require a user's input gesture to conform to a pre-set gesture. A differently abled user may have difficulties making particular gestures and a device that allows a user to define their own gestures would be preferable.
A further aspect of wearable computer input device usability is user preference. The devices described in 2005/0172734 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,747,632 are both designed for keyboard input. A user may find one of these devices more user-friendly and convenient than the other. A user may also find that neither of these devices meets his or her particular needs.
A substantial factor determining the productivity and utility users derive from their computers is the user-friendliness and convenience of the user's experience with a computer. Even a small difference in ease and convenience of the user interface can make a significant difference in the productivity and enjoyment of a user's experience, thus is an important factor in a buy decision.
Fashion.
For this specification fashion refers to whether a user will wear a particular wearable computer input device based on the device's look. Most users simply do not like to wear large clumsy devices as evidenced in the relative failure of VR headsets, particularly among women. Please refer to U.S. Pat. No. 6,970,157 FIGS. 10 and 11. The device pictured in these figures will not gain wide acceptance. There is no metric to describe why one wearable input device may be considered unfashionable. However, when in doubt, less is more. If a user is presented with two choices between similar wearable input devices s/he will pick the smaller one. To date computer wearable input devices have been designed primarily with functionality in mind.
The discussion above is merely provided for general background information and is not intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.
As can be seen from the above discussion there is no universal wearable computer input device that is right for all individuals or all functions.